Maybe a point that would've rebutted the first speaker's point is that a social medium in and of itself is not a harmful thing. It is a tool. And like all tools, it may either be used or abused depending on the motives of the wielder. Therefore, 'social media does not corrupt human interactions'. Rather, corrupt humans are the ones to blame. Another point would be to say that social media are an extension of "real world" communities. Claiming that social media corrupts human interaction commits a to quoque fallacy since it is fact that even though everyone quit social media right now, corruption would still prevail.
I agree with you though I'm with the first speaker's house in this debate! And perhaps she could convey that in times when social media did not even exist, even then human interactions were corrupted as well! Misunderstandings, envy, depression etc were born before it not because of it. And about it being a tool, indeed, a powerful tool as that, if a corrupted person wields it, it may worsen the nature of corruptness in interactions!
The 'it's a tool' argument isn't very meaningful as you can apply it to just about anything. 'Bombs aren't harmful you can use them to mine etc'. The reality is that without bombs an awful lot of mass destruction wouldn't be possible. Corruption would prevail without social media, but would there be less of it? Or is it a medium that amplifies corruption? I feel your arguments are a result of being biased, you are just looking to find counter-arguments instead of seriously considering the points of the 'opposition'.
@@Maarten8867 I couldn’t agree more. It’s like Astro World or Seoul - you could say that the crowds were ultimately responsible but that wouldn’t really address the underlying issue
He cleans up this rebuttal with the statistics on depression and eating disorders. Not only are all people who use social media affected but the statistics are alarming because it is affecting the youth. This forces the debate to questions of WHY and HOW? It weakens the argument of Pros because the cons are far worse. If social media is causing mental disorders in undeveloped children and teens, how can you possibly agree without undermining your argument of selfish gain? Plus, the statistics more than likely show that the user is at risk the more they use it.
The speech was fluent and confidently delivered but missed the point. She argued that social media had benefits. The proposition didn’t deny that it did. It said that it also harmed people and that was the debate.
She did say that "...although [the invention of Facebook] has definitely changed the way that we interact, this change is most definitely not a corruption."
when her friend, jack symonds said that '' the motion is not about the benefit of social media, it's about how social media affects human interactions'' the opposition side already lost their chance to defend their beliefs. 👏🤣 though her speech was good too.
My most cherished moments won’t be shared. When you truly cherish something you protect it which is the exact opposite of social media which mimics the real world but with heightened variables that tech can alter. The reason your mom told you not to talk to strangers still applies in some aspect.
I may be wrong, and I'm not really defending the speaker here, but the First Speaker of the Opposition has to introduced their side of the argument and not speak against the points proposed. In this perspective I can say she has done a good job introducing their side of the motion
How does social media allows us to love and be loved exactly? I have to disagree. Social media allows us to be seen and to see others. But love, I don’t see how that is possible.
My main problem here is that she has very little eye contact with listeners that made her weaker than Jack (the speaker before) even though she clearly is a good speaker.
She did not argue truly what the opposition had said.. if anything she was just going on about what he said at first the social DOES help us in many ways.. but still doesn’t take away the fact that it has corrupted human interaction.
They could have talk of the fact that not everything is perfect and their is good and bad in everything, furthermore, social media is a tool to learn how to become a better communicator, people who can’t make friends in the physical work have the opportunity to talk to others in social media, it allow us to see the world from other’s point of view such as having a friend form another country and learn about their culture. Social media also helps us share stories with another. Many have found long lost relatives and friends through social media interactions. Social media itself is not meant to always be consume, of course we should control our time on it, and be productive too.
what she does is quite clever. She links opposing the motion with supporting minorities, and in doing so is able to dodge every point made by the proposition. But it doesn't really come off well.
I think jack ( opposition ) was the one who didn't did a good job putting his point of view . I agree he spoke really well but he was agreeing with the opposition and it's a debate so I think instead of agreeing at some point he should be opposing . I think she did a pretty good job in opposing her opponent.
She just talked about the benefits of social media rather than talking about how social media doesn't corrupt human interactions. She could have raised the point that social media can be and is used to embed positive ideas in humans like body positivity, postpartum journeys of females, yoga etc.
Her definition of corrupt states that a feature of corruption is a void of benefit, or benefit that has been stripped by a person or group of individuals. So by showing that there are very real and abundant benefits to social media, she is simultaneously proving that it is not corrupt
I thought their should be time limit so that people not uses too much, so that's the time we use not gone in Vain..... there is much more to say...i would like to end my message by asking everyone we should need to find a way to overcome the issues raised by social media🙌
Oh good gosh!!! "Social media is good because it allows people to promote BS." What is the matter with kids these days? So captivated by Social Justice!
@@drstrangelove09 Can you elaborate what you mean by that? When it allows kids to promote, it is a tool that allows kids to have a voice in a society that looks down upon the opinion of younger people. Younger people also have a significantly different way of viewing that other generations do not have, which is helpful for broadening your mind and gaining data of subjects one is not familiar with.
India gak munafik: Tuhan pantas dihina, dimarahi, dan pantas bertanggung jawab (di dewa-dewi) tapi Cina munafik bilang di film Sun Go Kong siluman ularnya masuk surga walau surganya hirarki seperti pagoda, padahal itu salah. Justice/keadilan itu diperlukan. Maka yang benar bukan loyal, brave, and true tapi KEBAIKAN, KEBENARAN, KEADILAN karena Gw GRACE adalah KEBAIKAN, KEBENARAN, KEADILAN
When these Social Media platforms crumble (it has already begun) people will need to develope interpersonal skills. You may not know what's going on with everyone you know and you will not care.
She really doesn’t get the point, she isn’t talking about social media per say but technology that has connected the world, one can argue that using Instagram is not the same as video calling your grandparents on WhatsApp or Skype or face time, she’s got the two mixed up and keeps talking about the connectivity that Internet and phone calls provide as opposed to social media and the interactions with the community there
Yeah I thought that was weird too. Social media is part of the internet, the whole internet isnt social media. But the idea of what "social media" is has to expand for us too. Like for example, social media isnt just necessarily Facebook, Twitter, youtube etc. Even before these blogs existed and the comment section acted as social media. But yeah thats really just a convo looking at the whole picture. But rn we are particularly focusing on the "tech" that is making it easy for laymen to share content e.g. fb, twitter, insta etc etc
I think this speech had its points but I think she overestimated how much social media benefited people who don't contribute to the economy in a positive way e.g. the elderly as hinted at in the opening lines
It wasn’t that the argument itself was weak. The key is that the initial motion was both strategic and preemptive, skillfully addressing all anticipated points from the defense. This smart move put the defense in a tough position, making it difficult for their first motion to stand firm
@@ShreyaSingh_2k24 contrary to popular belief, not everything is about "boomers oppressing women". I would have said the same if a man was giving the speech with chest buttons open. Also pretending that there is no such thing as professional clothing or fancy/casual clothing is just a rhetoric that can't be argued.
Very well, the speaker constantly reads from the paper. So I feel doubts that the speaker knows the subject, maybe just is able to pronounce a text. That's not a convincing way to share ideas. I'd be afraid about arguments and knowledge strength of such speakers, not what I would like.
When I saw her standing in thay dress, I promptly got the idea that she have nothing authentic to say because she is trying to impress by audience by her dress and body. Anyway, couldn't grasp our attention.
Proposition said stop stalking, start talking. She stalked him on instagram 😂
😂😂
Lmfaoo 😂😂😂😂😂
😂
😅😂😂
Absolute cinema
Maybe a point that would've rebutted the first speaker's point is that a social medium in and of itself is not a harmful thing. It is a tool. And like all tools, it may either be used or abused depending on the motives of the wielder. Therefore, 'social media does not corrupt human interactions'. Rather, corrupt humans are the ones to blame.
Another point would be to say that social media are an extension of "real world" communities. Claiming that social media corrupts human interaction commits a to quoque fallacy since it is fact that even though everyone quit social media right now, corruption would still prevail.
I agree with you though I'm with the first speaker's house in this debate! And perhaps she could convey that in times when social media did not even exist, even then human interactions were corrupted as well! Misunderstandings, envy, depression etc were born before it not because of it. And about it being a tool, indeed, a powerful tool as that, if a corrupted person wields it, it may worsen the nature of corruptness in interactions!
The 'it's a tool' argument isn't very meaningful as you can apply it to just about anything. 'Bombs aren't harmful you can use them to mine etc'. The reality is that without bombs an awful lot of mass destruction wouldn't be possible.
Corruption would prevail without social media, but would there be less of it? Or is it a medium that amplifies corruption?
I feel your arguments are a result of being biased, you are just looking to find counter-arguments instead of seriously considering the points of the 'opposition'.
@@Maarten8867 I couldn’t agree more. It’s like Astro World or Seoul - you could say that the crowds were ultimately responsible but that wouldn’t really address the underlying issue
someone needs to be given a scholarship to oxford
He cleans up this rebuttal with the statistics on depression and eating disorders. Not only are all people who use social media affected but the statistics are alarming because it is affecting the youth. This forces the debate to questions of WHY and HOW? It weakens the argument of Pros because the cons are far worse. If social media is causing mental disorders in undeveloped children and teens, how can you possibly agree without undermining your argument of selfish gain? Plus, the statistics more than likely show that the user is at risk the more they use it.
The speech was fluent and confidently delivered but missed the point. She argued that social media had benefits. The proposition didn’t deny that it did. It said that it also harmed people and that was the debate.
i definately agree with your viewpoint
tbh how better can you portray that it doesnt corrupt human interactions than give its benefits, right?
@@yvonnekavithe6247 fr
Yes she pointed out only those facts which they had knew despite of it she presented only those points which can defend her statement.
She did say that "...although [the invention of Facebook] has definitely changed the way that we interact, this change is most definitely not a corruption."
when her friend, jack symonds said that '' the motion is not about the benefit of social media, it's about how social media affects human interactions'' the opposition side already lost their chance to defend their beliefs. 👏🤣
though her speech was good too.
😂😂😂
Very good debate
Good one
My most cherished moments won’t be shared. When you truly cherish something you protect it which is the exact opposite of social media which mimics the real world but with heightened variables that tech can alter.
The reason your mom told you not to talk to strangers still applies in some aspect.
I may be wrong, and I'm not really defending the speaker here, but the First Speaker of the Opposition has to introduced their side of the argument and not speak against the points proposed. In this perspective I can say she has done a good job introducing their side of the motion
How does social media allows us to love and be loved exactly? I have to disagree. Social media allows us to be seen and to see others. But love, I don’t see how that is possible.
Your channel names answers itself, all you have to do is "think about and love yourself" and the rest all you have to do is just see, swipe, ignore!
Narcissists tend to equate love with receiving compliments.
It's not possible because it lacks the incarnation.
Communion without incarnation is not communion.
Atheist and pagans won't understand.
she thinks likes are loves
My main problem here is that she has very little eye contact with listeners that made her weaker than Jack (the speaker before) even though she clearly is a good speaker.
She spoke reasonably well but what she said was bollocks
She basically just paroted what was conceeded by the Proposition. The propostion isn''t, "Social Media is without merit".
Social media has(as she mentioned) many benefits but as much as we reduce it it would be better or at least to be careful not to be addicted to it.
She did not argue truly what the opposition had said.. if anything she was just going on about what he said at first the social DOES help us in many ways.. but still doesn’t take away the fact that it has corrupted human interaction.
How has it corrupted more than the corruption that was already centuries present long before technology?
They could have talk of the fact that not everything is perfect and their is good and bad in everything, furthermore, social media is a tool to learn how to become a better communicator, people who can’t make friends in the physical work have the opportunity to talk to others in social media, it allow us to see the world from other’s point of view such as having a friend form another country and learn about their culture. Social media also helps us share stories with another. Many have found long lost relatives and friends through social media interactions. Social media itself is not meant to always be consume, of course we should control our time on it, and be productive too.
Very well said
what she does is quite clever. She links opposing the motion with supporting minorities, and in doing so is able to dodge every point made by the proposition. But it doesn't really come off well.
I think jack ( opposition ) was the one who didn't did a good job putting his point of view . I agree he spoke really well but he was agreeing with the opposition and it's a debate so I think instead of agreeing at some point he should be opposing . I think she did a pretty good job in opposing her opponent.
Social media distorting our real life, and happiness.
Beyond the wonderful speech, greatly articulate but quietly convincing because of the monotony... very very beautiful lady.
Social media provide spreading of information faster than any other form of media
Rumours and fake news 😅
😂@@shamskhan6934i agree with your point 😂😂
She is just reading her notes
Well no. It takes a lot of courage and confidence to speak there . She was maintaining eye contact and her speech was good too ..
She just talked about the benefits of social media rather than talking about how social media doesn't corrupt human interactions. She could have raised the point that social media can be and is used to embed positive ideas in humans like body positivity, postpartum journeys of females, yoga etc.
Her definition of corrupt states that a feature of corruption is a void of benefit, or benefit that has been stripped by a person or group of individuals. So by showing that there are very real and abundant benefits to social media, she is simultaneously proving that it is not corrupt
The way she put her words is really ingenious.
70% people watched just 30-40 seconds and just skipped.
Can you tell why did they clicked on it ,what they've understood and why stopped?
Well those skipped clearly don't know what debate is
Social media become our life part but where went social there is just media
I thought their should be time limit so that people not uses too much, so that's the time we use not gone in Vain..... there is much more to say...i would like to end my message by asking everyone we should need to find a way to overcome the issues raised by social media🙌
People studying in Oxford can also be this basic and cliche. It's actually a good thing that I realised.
You have corrupted my heart 💓❤️
Proper education or Workshop on how to use social media should be included in all education systems ✌🏻
what is the guy at the table writing the whole time??
HEyO LeWiAs A letter to his mom. He wanted to know what was for dinner.
I_Wear_Socks
How was the dinner though?
his grocery list
hahaha heeeeeheee
He is asking about the dinner the whole day in his letter. .😂
Oh good gosh!!! "Social media is good because it allows people to promote BS." What is the matter with kids these days? So captivated by Social Justice!
More like what's the matter with you, social media is currently a widely used tool to advertise and promote
@@isabell9190 so you think if I'm against promoting BS then that's a problem with me? that's a fail on your part
@@drstrangelove09 Can you elaborate what you mean by that? When it allows kids to promote, it is a tool that allows kids to have a voice in a society that looks down upon the opinion of younger people. Younger people also have a significantly different way of viewing that other generations do not have, which is helpful for broadening your mind and gaining data of subjects one is not familiar with.
@@isabell9190 I don't remember... did someone say thar social media allows people to promote BS in the video?
@@drstrangelove09 I don't remember...did I just list reasons as to why it IS a good tool for promoting in the first place?
India gak munafik: Tuhan pantas dihina, dimarahi, dan pantas bertanggung jawab (di dewa-dewi) tapi Cina munafik bilang di film Sun Go Kong siluman ularnya masuk surga walau surganya hirarki seperti pagoda, padahal itu salah. Justice/keadilan itu diperlukan. Maka yang benar bukan loyal, brave, and true tapi KEBAIKAN, KEBENARAN, KEADILAN karena Gw GRACE adalah KEBAIKAN, KEBENARAN, KEADILAN
When these Social Media platforms crumble (it has already begun) people will need to develope interpersonal skills. You may not know what's going on with everyone you know and you will not care.
"She is just reading her notes"
excellent pronunciation speaker!
To strip it of its utility, its function, and its pleasures.
She really doesn’t get the point, she isn’t talking about social media per say but technology that has connected the world, one can argue that using Instagram is not the same as video calling your grandparents on WhatsApp or Skype or face time, she’s got the two mixed up and keeps talking about the connectivity that Internet and phone calls provide as opposed to social media and the interactions with the community there
Yeah I thought that was weird too. Social media is part of the internet, the whole internet isnt social media.
But the idea of what "social media" is has to expand for us too. Like for example, social media isnt just necessarily Facebook, Twitter, youtube etc. Even before these blogs existed and the comment section acted as social media. But yeah thats really just a convo looking at the whole picture.
But rn we are particularly focusing on the "tech" that is making it easy for laymen to share content e.g. fb, twitter, insta etc etc
I love the fact that how intellectual the comment section is ❤
Social media really unsocialize the human in the real Life.
Excellent madam
disappointing all i heard was its wonderful for victims dont think that was the arguement
I think this speech had its points but I think she overestimated how much social media benefited people who don't contribute to the economy in a positive way e.g. the elderly as hinted at in the opening lines
Using egotism to make money is unhealthy and devisive. Grow up.
It wasn’t that the argument itself was weak. The key is that the initial motion was both strategic and preemptive, skillfully addressing all anticipated points from the defense. This smart move put the defense in a tough position, making it difficult for their first motion to stand firm
Are the notes , pre written week before the debate , or 1hour before the debate
i think it's pre-written. the numbers were pretty detailed and i don't think they can search all that within an hour.
She did not dress well for the debate, HONEY THIS IS OXFORD UNION
Are u saying it's too fancy or not fancy enough?
@@derica818 im saying the chest is open. its not a nigh club
@@carmen-xu7wn girls have boobies, its not a secret. And she looked wonderful
Stop being a boomer
@@ShreyaSingh_2k24 contrary to popular belief, not everything is about "boomers oppressing women".
I would have said the same if a man was giving the speech with chest buttons open.
Also pretending that there is no such thing as professional clothing or fancy/casual clothing is just a rhetoric that can't be argued.
Wow.. You delivered the best lecture
Good reading
It became advantages and disadvantages of social media not is it harmful or not
Very nice
by be coming of social media the world becom global vellage
youtube and goole is the good teachers of every carrear
Social media has really destroyed face to face interaction. That person is so off with what she is saying.
Very well, the speaker constantly reads from the paper. So I feel doubts that the speaker knows the subject, maybe just is able to pronounce a text. That's not a convincing way to share ideas. I'd be afraid about arguments and knowledge strength of such speakers, not what I would like.
Am an hopeles romantic...so i see academic rivals to lovers...
7:09 did that old man seriously fall asleep
Delectable message 🥰
The name is Oxford but greater the Indian debaters do debate with seeing their script but here everything is done by visioning as like news reading
Frr the kids of 3rd grade at the national level debate competitions do better in my country
harry styles!
When I saw her standing in thay dress, I promptly got the idea that she have nothing authentic to say because she is trying to impress by audience by her dress and body. Anyway, couldn't grasp our attention.
What is her name?
We do #welikeyouweshareyouwerecommendyou
Miss you samnvi
the benefit of the internet
this so basic
Is she from India
c trop dur a comprendre
The transcript is pretty accurate. You can even copy-paste it if you really want to understand this.
road Side money currancy (I Own Life personal)
Well
Instagram Interact people Emotional
Petrol desal break when her model vhical come when
lo wanita tercantik kedua di india setelah kareena kapoor di mujhse dosti karoge pada saat pakai dress bendera amerika
she is READING!!! not a good debater.
I would like to see you perform😂🤫
She sounds and looks nervous 😓
No she doesn't . I think she is pretty confident
You tube wach video
Well she doesn't have manners what to wear on a debate..... Just like her dress... Her argument was also weak
What the hell?
I would love to see your debate .
I think her argument was pretty strong unlike the opponen, she was on the topic.
💪😎🌹
Mammaries.
You caught me
👍
My oil put head mechion go run no but no run
Nice showing of cons sister
Woman gold jadha allow fastivel when emportant
🍞 bread lol
she bad
Ankith lak gai hi
Aha what girl maryara phone goit my tenchinon allow it talk towel put free allow when gatup persion sleep no talk
Emma watseon boy girl you why my girlfriend he but when she same take my talk no my fingure talking
Bhind good spich very very buityful lady
Sari come you very buityful my look shock you cloth look super look super cute wore earth come angel
Marrege but one love goit 100 woman when it my astrolgy world full jarkes print
My cama pishahi
💯💯💯💯💯💯👎👎👎👎👎👎😂🤣😂
Darling you talk fidha allow it you home come visa talk you parts tech goit my happy it my allow goit come bagya
Very stupid justification.
Are you from Oxford. No then shhhh🤫
She's reading her stuff the whole time! 🥱
Her Better points are hidden partially